Psychological Topics, 29 (2020), 1, 17-41 Original Scientific Paper doi:https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.29.1.2 UDC: 159.942 37.091 José M. Mestre, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cadiz, Polígono Río San Pedro, Puerto Real, Cádiz 11510, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]17 How to Transversely Develop Ability Emotional Intelligence Ability through School Subjects? A Theoretical Proposal José M. Mestre Universidad de Cádiz, Department of Psychology, Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain Abstract Since emotional intelligence (EI) was developed in 1990, the field of Education took advantage of the possibilities of EI. Indeed, EI-specific programs proliferated and developed as socio-emotional learning programs (SEL). However, there is an alternative to realize non-specifically and longer and viability way for improving the implicit abilities of EI (AEI). The article claims to work a theoretical proposal to develop the AEI in compulsory education through the subjects. This proposal is based on the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities (CHC). CHC abilities are stimulated by most of the mandatory subjects of both Primary and Secondary Schools. The second stratum of CHC model is composed of similar cognitive abilities as 1997-Ability Emotional Intelligence Model (perception, using, understanding, and managing emotions), which is different from trait EI approaches - that consider EI has personality traits as well. It has pointed out that the capacities of the CHC-model second stratum are connected to the capabilities of AEI. Therefore, any educational activity that optimizes perception, understanding, attentional control or planning is affecting the development of AEI. Promoting AEI involves hot information processing. It is convenient to use transversely hot information processing - this means that this information has special meaning for the people. Connecting hot information to mandatory subjects teaching would develop the abilities of EI. Both Sciences and Natural Sciences pedagogic devices can improve emotional perception. However, Social Sciences and Humanities foster both emotional understanding and knowledge. Finally, the different contingencies that occur in school life scenarios are suitable for training of emotional regulation. Keywords: ability emotional intelligence, emotional education, Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities, socio-emotional learning What is Ability Emotional Intelligence? An Update Let us try to solve the next emotional statement: Which emotional state may result in a constant worry? Think about it for a while and decide on one from the next list of emotions: disgust, anxiety, sadness, joy or anger. Based on the traditional
25
Embed
How to Transversely Develop Ability Emotional Intelligence ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Psychological Topics, 29 (2020), 1, 17-41
Original Scientific Paper
doi:https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.29.1.2
UDC: 159.942
37.091
José M. Mestre, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of
Cadiz, Polígono Río San Pedro, Puerto Real, Cádiz 11510, Spain. E-mail:
Vuilleumier, 2012), which means that AEI is going to increase with age (Fariselli,
Ghini, & Freedman, 2008). Hence, the level of difficulty for an AEI test should rise
with age (Van den Broeck, Hofmans, Cooremans, & Staels, 2014). Among other
reasons, it is not an easy task to build an AEI test for children because their AEI is
still incipient; and also a good level of verbal understanding (a crystallized
intelligence) (Alegre, 2010) is necessary, although non-verbal abilities are important
Mestre, J. M.:
Developing Ability Emotional Intelligence at School
21
for the development of AEI as well (Albanese, De Stasio, Di Chiacchio, Fiorilli, &
Pons, 2010).
Besides, to be able to understand social emotions, it is necessary to foster a
cognitive development improvement (Allen et al., 2015; Elfenbein, Barsade, &
Eisenkraft, 2008; Fiori & Vasely-Maillerfer, 2018). For this reason, many of the EI
test for children just include emotional perception and expression tasks (Mestre, Guil,
Martinez-Cabañas, Larran, & de la Torre, 2011). An example of the complexity of
social emotions for children is the development of the theory of mind, which begins
close to four years of age (Lecce, Bianco, Devine, Hughes, & Banerjee, 2014).
Therefore, for instance, to test understanding and emotion management of children,
it would imply a higher emotional knowledge to understand what role has the envy
in a social comparison situation. At earlier stages of people’s life, testing AEI should
be centred on perceiving and expressing emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
The fifth principle, quite related to the previous one, is that these EI-
performance tests represent a score of how people’s AEI are, and their differences
in the score, in turn, reflect their mental ability to solve emotional content problems.
Therefore, if the test includes items that poorly reflect the content of the EI, then
these tests do not correctly represent what we want to measure and we could make
erroneous forecasts (Mayer et al., 2016). The elusiveness of testing AEI has been
reported several times (i.e., Sharma, Deller, Biswal, & Mandal, 2009).
The sixth principle is that AEI is a broad intelligence, what means that AEI is
better framed in those perspectives that have a molar vision of intelligence rather
than a molecular one - such as the factorial perspective of intelligence (Mayer,
Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001). Therefore, EI is theoretically better framed in
the adaptive perspective of intelligence (Mestre, 2003). The adaptive perspective of
intelligence is represented by authors such as Gardner, Sternberg or earlier by
Vygotsky or Piaget (Plucker & Esping, 2014). This perspective argues that
intelligence moves between broad and narrow capabilities. Specifically, the most
influential intelligence model today is the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) (Schneider &
McGrew, 2012), which is also known as the three-stratum intelligence model
(Schneider & Newman, 2015). The CHC model has been matched with the AEI
abilities at its second stratum (MacCann et al., 2014; Mestre et al., 2016). According
to Figure 2, it is possible to foster the second-stratum cognitive abilities CHC’s model
with the AEI. At the top of the model is g factor and at the bottom are the primary
mental abilities.
PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 29 (2020), 1, 17-41
20
reported that gifted students may have a below-average academic achievement for different reasons (Betts & Neihart, 1988; Callahan & Hertberg-Davis, 2013; Clinkenbeard, 2012; Guignard, Jacquet, & Lubart, 2012; Whitmore, 1980). Furthermore, AEI should be no different from other intelligence (Duckworth, Quinn, & Tsukayama, 2012). For example, some male adolescents with high EI are socially undervalued by their peers and teachers, yet they demonstrated a good capacity for academic achievement and a certain level of educational resilience (Lopes, Mestre, Guil, Kramenitzer, & Salovey, 2012; Mestre, Guil, Lopes, Salovey, & Gil-Olarte, 2006). Curiously, this male pattern of high AEI is maintained with male high-school students who prefer using their emotional abilities for academic achievement rather than for social functioning. Conversely, female high-school students prefer using their AEI for keeping good social functioning and academic achievements (Mestre et al., 2006). In other words, the theoretically foreseeable prediction of good social acceptance is not always fulfilled in people with high EI, at least with a high percentage of secondary-school males with good performance in cognitive task test such as the MSCEIT (Mayer - Salovey - Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003).
Besides, let us not forget that the term intelligent is an adjective, while intelligence is a noun. Linguistic connotations are important not to get lost in terminological vagueness. Emotionally intelligent behaviour is more related to the TEI approaches and personality construct than intelligence (Mayer et al., 2016), although significant correlations (low and very low) were found between intelligence and personality (Joseph & Newman, 2010).
The following two principles relate to how EI should be measured. Fourth, the content of an AEI test to be applied should cover the area of the problem to be solved. As a general rule, the intelligence tests have many items and are longer in duration, approximately 45 minutes in adults. An AEI test needs to cover a broad sphere of capabilities (perceiving, expressing, understanding, and managing emotions) in both personal and social functioning (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2012; Mayer et al., 2008). Testing intelligence requires to measure the whole framework and not just a few parameters of it (Nafukho, 2010), and, in the future AEI research, it is, therefore, necessary to assess AEI using different tests (by every single branch - perceiving, using, understanding, and managing) rather than a single and broader AEI measure, due to the construct validity issues (Lim, Lee, Pinkham, Lam, & Lee, 2019).
How to assess AEI at different ages is related to construct validity issues. Both social and cognitive development is affected by brain maturity (Izard et al., 2008; Vogel-Walcutt, Schatschneider, & Bowers, 2011; Vrtička, Bondolfi, Sander, & Vuilleumier, 2012), which means that AEI is going to increase with age (Fariselli, Ghini, & Freedman, 2008). Hence, the level of difficulty for an AEI test should rise with age (Van den Broeck, Hofmans, Cooremans, & Staels, 2014). Among other reasons, it is not an easy task to build an AEI test for children because their AEI is still incipient; and also a good level of verbal understanding (a crystallized intelligence) (Alegre, 2010) is necessary, although non-verbal abilities are important
Fi
gure
2. C
atte
ll-H
orn-
Carro
ll (C
HC)
The
ory
of C
ogni
tive
Abi
litie
s with
Em
otio
nal I
ntel
ligen
ce (E
I) as
a C
once
ptua
l Cat
egor
y. A
repr
esen
tatio
n of
CH
C Th
eory
of C
ogni
tive
Abi
litie
s at
Stra
tum
II li
nked
to E
mot
iona
l Int
ellig
ence
as
a co
ncep
tual
cat
egor
y. E
very
leve
l of t
he p
ower
abi
litie
s of
info
rmat
ion
proc
essin
g (m
otor
, per
cept
ion,
con
trolle
d at
tent
ion,
and
kno
wle
dge)
and
the
spee
d of
eac
h on
e ar
e re
late
d to
eac
h ab
ility
of t
he E
I as a
con
cept
ual c
ateg
ory.
CH
C Th
eory
has
thre
e stra
ta; t
he fi
rst s
tratu
m is
not
repr
esen
ted
in th
e fig
ure.
Leg
end
for M
otor
Lev
el: G
p is
Psyc
hom
otor
Abi
litie
s. Le
gend
s for
Per
cept
ion
Leve
l: G
k is
Kin
aesth
etic
, Gv
is V
isual
-Spa
tial,
Ga
is A
udito
ry, G
o is
Olfa
ctor
y, a
nd G
h is
Tact
ile. L
egen
ds fo
r Con
trolle
d at
tent
ion:
Gf i
s flu
id re
ason
ing
and
Gw
m i
s w
orki
ng m
emor
y. L
egen
ds f
or K
now
ledg
e le
vel:
Gc
is V
erba
l Co
mpr
ehen
sion
& K
now
ledg
e, G
q is
Qua
ntita
tive
Kno
wle
dge,
Grw
is
Read
ing/
Writ
ing,
and
Gkn
is D
omai
n-Sp
ecifi
c K
now
ledg
e. Ba
sed
in S
chne
ider
& N
ewm
an (2
015)
.
22
Mestre, J. M.:
Developing Ability Emotional Intelligence at School
23
In the second stratum of the CHC model, there are broader cognitive abilities
than in the first (see Flanagan & Dixon, 2013; McGrew, 2009). In this level, it has
been reported that AEI’s branches are closely related to perception and motor
expression (with perceiving and expressing emotions), attentional control (with
emotional regulation), and knowledge (with understanding emotions) (MacCann et
al., 2014; Mestre et al., 2016). These relationships are reflected in Figure 3. Although
in a posterior reanalysis of the data, Legree et al. (2014) found the four components
of AEI in the second stratum of the CHC model.
To summarize, it might be hypothesized that by developing the capacities of the
CHC’s second stratum, abilities set in the AEI framework will also be developed
(Mestre et al., 2016). Therefore, if the contents of the subjects such as maths, natural
sciences, humanities, and social sciences develop the CHC model’s abilities, the next
assumption would be that AEI might also be positively affected by this development.
Recently, a positive relationship between AEI and academic achievement has been
reported in a meta-analysis (MacCann et al., 2020), however, I strongly believe that
this relationship between AEI and academic achievement is probably
complementary, which means that higher academic achievement during school
stages will also develop higher AEI scoring. Next, and the last principle would give
a clue of how to transversely implement AEI over school subjects.
The seventh and the last principle of Mayer et al. (2016) is that EI is focused on
the processing of information involved with information that has special meaning for
individuals (in fact, they called it hot information processing). Mayer et al. (2016)
divided processing information into hot and cool. Cold information is information
related to facts or meanings of no personal value to people, like the calculation of a
mathematical equation. However, hot information is any information that has
meaning to an individual, as social acceptance, coherent identity, or emotional well-
being (Mestre et al., 2016). Unlike other intelligences, AEI deals with hot
information, which has an adaptive value and meaning for people (Mayer et al.,
2016). Understanding this difference between hot and cold information is important
to develop the AEI in people, hence, any mental activity that connects cognitive
capacity with this type of information is, theoretically, an act of EI development
pointed out that the AEI use this hot information from emotions with precision and
accurately.
With all arguments exposed above, how could research on ability emotional
intelligence be carried out without implying a revolution in the curricular projects of
schools? Several EI programs at school and their impact are documented (Nathanson,
Rivers, Flynn, & Brackett, 2016). However, it is also demonstrated that it is better to
Fi
gure
3. C
atte
l-Hor
n-Ca
rroll
(CH
C) T
heor
y of
Cog
nitiv
e A
bilit
ies v
ersu
s Hie
rarc
hica
l Mod
el o
f EI a
s Stra
tum
II A
bilit
y. A
repr
esen
tatio
n of
CH
C Th
eory
of
Cog
nitiv
e A
bilit
ies
at S
tratu
m II
(Sch
neid
er &
New
man
, 201
5), w
hich
is re
late
d to
the
Hie
rarc
hica
l Mod
el o
f EI a
s a
Stra
tum
II A
bilit
y. A
ccor
ding
to
Mac
Cann
et a
l. (2
014)
, Em
otio
nal I
ntel
ligen
ce (E
I) be
long
s to
the
seco
nd s
tratu
m a
nd it
s th
ree
mai
n br
anch
es a
re in
clud
ed in
the
Stra
tum
I (P
erce
ptio
n,
Und
ersta
ndin
g, a
nd M
anag
ing,
PU
M; F
acili
tatio
n br
anch
is re
mov
ed d
ue it
s red
unda
ncy
with
per
cept
ion
and
man
agin
g). F
igur
e 2
desc
ribes
all
repr
esen
ted
lege
nds.
24
PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 29 (2020), 1, 17-41
20
reported that gifted students may have a below-average academic achievement for different reasons (Betts & Neihart, 1988; Callahan & Hertberg-Davis, 2013; Clinkenbeard, 2012; Guignard, Jacquet, & Lubart, 2012; Whitmore, 1980). Furthermore, AEI should be no different from other intelligence (Duckworth, Quinn, & Tsukayama, 2012). For example, some male adolescents with high EI are socially undervalued by their peers and teachers, yet they demonstrated a good capacity for academic achievement and a certain level of educational resilience (Lopes, Mestre, Guil, Kramenitzer, & Salovey, 2012; Mestre, Guil, Lopes, Salovey, & Gil-Olarte, 2006). Curiously, this male pattern of high AEI is maintained with male high-school students who prefer using their emotional abilities for academic achievement rather than for social functioning. Conversely, female high-school students prefer using their AEI for keeping good social functioning and academic achievements (Mestre et al., 2006). In other words, the theoretically foreseeable prediction of good social acceptance is not always fulfilled in people with high EI, at least with a high percentage of secondary-school males with good performance in cognitive task test such as the MSCEIT (Mayer - Salovey - Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003).
Besides, let us not forget that the term intelligent is an adjective, while intelligence is a noun. Linguistic connotations are important not to get lost in terminological vagueness. Emotionally intelligent behaviour is more related to the TEI approaches and personality construct than intelligence (Mayer et al., 2016), although significant correlations (low and very low) were found between intelligence and personality (Joseph & Newman, 2010).
The following two principles relate to how EI should be measured. Fourth, the content of an AEI test to be applied should cover the area of the problem to be solved. As a general rule, the intelligence tests have many items and are longer in duration, approximately 45 minutes in adults. An AEI test needs to cover a broad sphere of capabilities (perceiving, expressing, understanding, and managing emotions) in both personal and social functioning (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2012; Mayer et al., 2008). Testing intelligence requires to measure the whole framework and not just a few parameters of it (Nafukho, 2010), and, in the future AEI research, it is, therefore, necessary to assess AEI using different tests (by every single branch - perceiving, using, understanding, and managing) rather than a single and broader AEI measure, due to the construct validity issues (Lim, Lee, Pinkham, Lam, & Lee, 2019).
How to assess AEI at different ages is related to construct validity issues. Both social and cognitive development is affected by brain maturity (Izard et al., 2008; Vogel-Walcutt, Schatschneider, & Bowers, 2011; Vrtička, Bondolfi, Sander, & Vuilleumier, 2012), which means that AEI is going to increase with age (Fariselli, Ghini, & Freedman, 2008). Hence, the level of difficulty for an AEI test should rise with age (Van den Broeck, Hofmans, Cooremans, & Staels, 2014). Among other reasons, it is not an easy task to build an AEI test for children because their AEI is still incipient; and also a good level of verbal understanding (a crystallized intelligence) (Alegre, 2010) is necessary, although non-verbal abilities are important
Mestre, J. M.:
Developing Ability Emotional Intelligence at School
25
implement it transversely and through several school years than through a brief
educational program (UNESCO, 2014).
The Relationship between Ability Emotional Intelligence and both
Social and Personal Functioning at School
Durlak, Domitrovich, Weissberg, and Gullotta (2011) conducted a meta-
analysis showing the results that integrate a systematic process of social-emotional
development programmes (called social-emotional learning, SEL). According to
authors, the implementation of these SEL programmes increases academic success,
shows improvements in the relationship between pupils and teachers and reduces
disruptive behaviour in the classroom (Durlak et al., 2011). SEL refers to the
processes involved in the development of emotional knowledge and the regulation
of emotions in oneself and others that improve interrelationships and socially
desirable decision-making (Durlak et al., 2015).
Under SEL programs at school, their AEI implementations have improved well-
being, quality relationships, academic performance, and school adaptation (Mestre
et al., 2006; Nathanson et al., 2016). This relationship is a good social and
educational investment (Belfield et al., 2015) but there is need for teaching long-term
SEL skills in educational settings (Brackett & Rivers, 2013; Nathanson et al., 2016).
However, it is not easy to change traditional educational systems and to add SEL
long-term programs. Although short-term SEL programs, such as RULER in the
USA (Nathanson et al., 2016) or INTEMO for adolescents in Spain (Ruiz-Aranda et
al., 2013), have been implemented, little is still known about the long-term effects of
these SEL programs (MacCann et al., 2020).
Using hot information processes, it is feasible to teach AEI transversely through
the school subjects. Any school-cognitive activity is likely going to improve any
ability set in the EI framework (Mestre et al., 2016). Instead of short-term AEI
programs, it is more desirable to implement longer ones. However, as far as we know,
there are no experiences of implementing an AEI subject or a long-term AEI program
at school because this option implies a strong will among policymakers - despite
good outcomes after short SEL experiences. Nonetheless, there is an alternative non-
specific approach. Instead of a specific AEI program, it is feasible to include meaning
and significance (hot information) in most of the subjects. Then, the AEI-
implementing challenge is how to include this meaningful information in traditional
subjects. According to Figures 2 and 3, the connection between EI abilities and
CHC’s cognitive abilities would provide generalisations of the education-emotion
programs, and there are enough school scenarios for this promising relationship
(Deneault & Ricard, 2011; Kemeny et al., 2012; Lopes et al., 2012; MacCann et al.,
2020; Nathanson et al., 2016; Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004).
For example, Ivcevic and Brackett (2015) pointed out that explicitly teaching of
AEI also enhances students’ ability to solve complex and real problems in daily life
(even at school stages). Wouldn’t it also be the other way around? If students pay
PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 29 (2020), 1, 17-41
26
attention (second stratum, attentional control) during the resolution of a math
problem, and based on their math knowledge (knowledge, see Figure 2) they may
successfully solve the math problem. Hence, students’ increasing CHC’s abilities set
in the ability emotional intelligence, too. Most of the school subjects require the
development of cognitive abilities and skills and vice-versa. Next section tries to
explain how to include this hot-emotional information in some key school subjects.